Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

“Apparently not ...(sigh). Listen carefully, Ben: You-are-wrong. The-acoustics-expert-was-right. Articulation-has-nothing-silch-nada-to-do-with-it.”

This is the nonsense I’ve already challenged, Fisherman.

Repeating it again in antagonistic language and using lots of pointless synonyms of the word “nothing” does nothing to enhance its already very tenuous credibility.

It appears I’m not the first to have problems with the nature of your communication with the acoustics expert, who you did not appear to have acquainted with the specific elements in place at the time of the alleged overhearing of an implausible hanky-related exchange. I’ve already demonstrated that wind adversely affects a listener’s ability to hear a conversation, as does cooler temperatures, and Hutchinson would have borne the brunt of an eastern, creating precisely the sort of turbulence that we’re informed affects people’s sound detecting ability, especially from 30 metres away. When wind is channelled down a “corridor”, to borrow your characterization of Dorset Street, that turbulence is obviously increased.

It is outlandish nonsense to claim that normal or loud conversation can be discerned just as easily as much quieter conversation. It is astoundingly obvious, or should be considered so, that the latter is far more vulnerable to “competition” from other sounds from other sources. It stands to reason that the louder the sound, the more likely it is to rise above other background noises of the type that most assuredly existed in Dorset Street in 1888, as opposed to becoming “blurred”, to borrow from your crass terminology that you use to characterize my reasoning on this topic.

Your CD-playing comparison is strictly to be dismissed as nonsense too, because again, you fail to factor in other sounds that might compete with and “blur” the sound of the CD when played at a low volume, such as were present in Dorset Street. Then you make an even worse “whispering” comparison that also assumes that no other background noises would have been present.

“If it WAS, we do not know, just as we do not know any surrounding specifics about the sounds at hand there and then, which is why we look at the underlying scientific facts. Dot. End. Full stop. Finito.”

But if it we lack specific knowledge regarding the “sounds at hand there and then”, the worse thing we can possibly do is purport to use “underlying scientific facts” and apply them to the Dorset Street episode on the assumption that there weren’t any “sounds at hand there and then”, as you appear to have done when contacting your acoustics man. Dot. End. Finis. Boom. Curtain call. Exeunt. The Grey Havens. Huge great yawning black hole of utter finality.

“Now, try and keep "articulation" out of this discussion from now on. It does not belong to it.”

Yes, I’ll follow your lead.

I’ll embrace that suggestion.

So no more “articulation” talk after this.

Unless…

“Yes, and it becomes even MORE interesting when we realize that 5 dB added to 40 dB increases the sound not by a mere 12 per cent, but instead by 50!”

Really? How fascinating!

Back to that sound chart I provided then, and we’ll have a look at what 50 decibels is considered to be equivalent to. Here it is: an average home. So according to your fascinating information, 45 decibels is considered 50% percent quieter than a sound sample taken from an average home. Sounds about right, really. About level with twice the volume of a quiet library. Not a normal library – and all libraries are considered pretty quiet – but specifically a quiet one. Yep, about what I imagined to be the case really. Thanks for that.

I reject the “loud voice” because it did not appear in his original police statement, but only in press versions of his account, which not so coincidentally appeared for public consumption very shortly before he was discredited. Obviously, if you’re sticking with the “loud voice” as the correct version, it’s only fair and consistent that you accept all the other juicy goodies he kept from the police but only told the journalists, such as the Astrakhan’s polar opposite complexion and his polar opposite moustache from the versions he gave the police, to say nothing of “white buttons over button boots”, and a red stone seal dangling tantalizingly from his curiously exposed “thick gold chain”.

“Suggestion: Do not try and create some sort of allowed space or some artifically concocted accoustic surrounding for Dorset Street of 1888.”

I haven’t “concocted” anything, artificially or otherwise. I’ve only drawn legitimate attention to the obvious reality that there would have been background noise in Dorset Street. Reciprocal suggestion: don’t assume that there would not have been any background noise of any description, and then use that terribly bad assumption to conduct what you wrongly consider to be a scientific study. It is very clear that we’re not dealing with “undisturbed circumstances” so why inform an expert that you were and then expect accurate and relevant feedback?

“Do you want to go over this again, or are we done? Of course we´re not...!”

You can be “done” whenever you like, mate. If you want to go over this again, I’ll just refute it all over again, and what repetitive fun we’ll have. It just depends if you’re up for it. Yeah, you’re up for it.

“And who would you have contacted?”

Lund University, of course.

First choice every time.

Nothing and nobody compares.

“Ever heard of silent streets, Ben? Ever heard somebody say "It was a silent night"?”

Yes, and they're generally people who really mean "silent", and who are not referring to the crowded streets of the East End in the Late Victorian period, with their reputation for their busy lodging houses and their well-documented "vicious and semi-criminal" element.

“It is nothing of the sort. I hear nothing from inside the houses in my street, unless the windows are open”

Here we go again.

Fisherman’s house in Sweden versus a crowded East End street full of lodging houses and prostitutes.

Which one is likely to generate more noise at night-time.

Exactly.

The cries that Lewis and Prater referred to as having been “non uncommon” (or whatever the precise terminology was) would have contributed to the “constant ambient noise” that would have existed in the street, courtesy of the hundreds of impoverished dossers who lived there, and who worked at all hours of the night. I’m afraid if you think for one moment that the entire occupancy of Dorset Street would have been tucked up in bed by 2:15am, I can only urge a lot more reading and understanding of the topic. Prostitutes frequented these lodgings, Fisherman. Just read the evidence from the Chapman inquest of people sitting around in the kitchen into the small hours. Workmen were coming and going at all hours. And what’s this business about windows shutting being an obstacle to noise? Good heavens, no. We’re not talking about double glazing here, but the windows of some of the worst lodging houses around.

“Eh, that´s wrong. It clearly was not TAKEN DOWN if he said it. THAT`S correct!”

According to who?

You?

Then you must provide your evidence that Hutchinson made a statement about Kelly’s “loud voice” when speaking to the police, or else retract your accusation that I’m wrong. It doesn’t make any sense at all for the police to have failed to take note of a “loud voice” reference if Hutchinson really made one, only for the presumably more thorough (?) press bods to have found the better sense to include it.

“I am poiting to the fact that people use different volume levels when they speak, as a means to emphasize.”

Yes, but what you don’t seem to be acknowledging, to my confused surprise, is that it is far more common to use vocal intonation to convey “emphasis” than mere volume. Is this how you usually emphasise words? By speaking the words you wish to emphasise in a conspicuously louder voice? I certainly don’t, and I don’t know very many people who do either.

“Listen to Churchill´s and Hitler´s speeches, Ben. These two gentlemen..”

I don’t think you really meant to say that Hitler was a "gentleman", Fisherman!

Yes, he was gratingly voluminous in his style of oratory, and was infamous for it. Bear in mind, though, that the subject matter included the new world order, the persecution of Jewry, and a grand ambition to make Rhineland a fine land once more. He hadn’t just lost his handkerchief.

The phrase “come along my dear, you will be comfortable” does not appear in any press version of Hutchinson’s account. It only appears in his police statement. With the “loud” voice, the reverse is true – it appears in the press account, but not the police statement. So unfortunately and unenviably for you, in order to retain any semblance of consistency with regard to your Hutchinson related claims, it becomes necessary for you to endorse everything from both police and press accounts as truthful. For example, you chose to believe both “come along my dear” (police only) and “loud voice” (press only) but you’re really going to struggle when it comes to the Astrakhan description where you’re compelled to accept that Astrakhan had both a pale and a dark complexion, and both a slight and a heavy moustache. Good luck with that one.

“You tried. It, hmmmmm - failed.”

That’s according to, hmmmmm – you, whose opinion on such matters I, hmmmmm – reject.

“But Fisherman DOES tell you that it is proven that in a street like Dorset Street, if no much disturbances were around, the conversation COULD have been picked up and made out. But I could swear I had pointed this out to you before?”

But since it is so obvious that there would have been disturbances and background ambient noise in the street and the immediate locality, it is unlikely in the extreme that conversation could have been picked up and made out. Yes, you did point this out to me before, and I disputed it when you did so, and now you’re bringing it up again and I’m disputing it again. Shall we call it a day and agree to disagree, or are we destined for round three?

“When a boy was snatched some years ago and abducted in a car, the boy´s friend had the fewest of seconds to observe the car and it´s features.”

I don’t know the details, but I’m absolutely certain in my prediction that it doesn’t compare in the slightest to the sheer level of detail that Hutchinson claimed to have both noticed and memorized in his police statement and press account, and you endorse both as truthful, giving us a wonderfully entertaining total list that reads as follows:

Age about 34 or 35.
Height 5ft6
Complexion pale
Dark complexion
Dark eyes
Dark eye lashes
Slight moustache, curled up each end
Dark Moustache
No side whiskers, and cleanshaven chin
Hair dark
Very surley looking
Long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan.
Dark jacket under.
Light waistcoat
Dark trousers
Dark felt hat turned down in the middle.
Button boots and gaiters with white buttons.
Very thick gold chain
Big seal, with a red stone hanging from it
White linen collar.
Black tie
Horse shoe pin.
Respectable appearance
Walked very sharp.
Walked very softly.
Jewish appearance
a pair of brown kid gloves
red handkerchief
Carried a small parcel in his hand about eight inches long, and it had a strap around it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth.

And we’re expected to believe that Hutchinson noticed and memorized all of this in darkness and miserable conditions at 2:15 in the morning in Victorian London, when the only chance he had to scrutinize the man’s more minute particulars was when he passed under a gas lamp, and when he was only paying attention to the man’s face during that fleeting second?

If people have no problem with any of this, even today, that’s their choice, but I think if certain people tried to look past the idea of naughty opinionated Ben and his fellow “Hutchinsonians” supposedly accusing him of murder, they might at least recognise the futility of arguing that discredited Hutchinson told the squeaky clean unembellished truth about his spooky, pantomime villain suspect. All this nonsense about Hutchinson noticing Astrakhan and incrementally memorizing different bits of clothing and bling at different times such as at Thrawl Street (no light) and when he was allegedly following the couple (no view of Astrakhan apart from his coat) is just resistance to the glaringly obvious.

But if we’re up for a discussion on the specifics of the Astrakhan man description, off we go, of course…

“No, but the width of the street has”

But not to the length of the street from the Dorset Street corner to the Miller’s Court entrance. Obviously, as you point out, the street in those days was more likely to channel the background noise that certainly existed at the time.

“We have proof that normal conversation can be made out from 30 meters away, if we do not add too much ambient noise”

If we don't add any ambient noise, Fisherman, and this is the problem. You appear to have contacted this person without expecting him to factor in any "ambient noise", despite it being so obvious that both background noise from Dorset Street and the immediate locality affected the area at the time, as did a "turbulent" wind. If these aren't incorporated into these experiments or communications with acoustics experts, their "scientific" applicability is dubious at best.

But you say you don’t want to get bogged down.

Okay. Let’s not then.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

The diminishing amount of credence invested in Hutchinson's account over the years seems to be to be directly proportional to the equally diminishing popularity of the celebrity or well-to-do suspects that were for a long time the preference. Occasionally, you'll encounter just the odd example of people adhering to previously accepted truisms for no other reason than that they have been accepted for decades. I'm afraid people like Stephen Knight have a good deal to answer for when accounting for the uncritical approach towards Hutchinson's statement that has characterized mainstream thinking on the subject until relatively recently.

It's also worth bearing in mind the revelation that Hutchinson was discredited very shortly after his account, which also seems to have happened relatively recently. No longer can "Abberline believed him!" be used as a protest against those who would argue very rationally that Hutchinson probably lied in at least some aspects of his account.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

I still think you're missing the significance of the Packer and Violenia comparisons. These men, among others, had reinforced an established precedent with regard the type of person most likely to supply false information to the investigating police force - typically a time-waster, money or publicity seeker. It would have been a very simple and logical move for the 1888 police to have concluded that Hutchinson was just another one of these. Despite their claims to have been in close proximity to the crime scene at a time relevant to a ripper-attributed murder, neither Packer nor Violenia were considered potential suspects.

Yes, they were subjected to rigorous checks, but only insofar as their witness statements were scrutinized and chewed over in detail, and certainly not to the extent that they were investigated as suspects. It's also a grave misunderstanding to assume that Hutchinson received more of a prominent role than Packer. The latter could at least be proven to have been near the crime scene when he claimed to have been, and was even interviewed by Charles Warren. Neither can be said of Hutchinson.

“Option 1 – the police may have found out something about his story that destroyed his credibility, but in such a way as it did not imply his involvement in the crime. I have given possible examples of this which I won’t repeat.
I would suggest that in this instance some rudimentary checks would have been preformed as to his story – some he will probably have ‘passed’, others ‘failed’ – hence his rejection.”

Option 1 is a very sensible option, and very much in accordance with the police treatment of other false witnesses. I would endorse it wholeheartedly.

“Option 2 – Hutchinson’s story was discounted for some other reason that implied he was lying. This could be because he was a fantasist or because he was on the make or he was the culprit.”

This is also reasonable as far as it goes, but it’s when we look at some of the assumptions that branch off from Option #2 that we often encounter problems.

The first is this idea that an unfulfilled suspicion on the part of the police would propel Hutchinson to "major suspect" status. This is very unlikely for reasons I have already expounded. The police clearly had certain suspect types that they prioritized over others, and they included foreigners, madmen, butchers and doctors, but rarely local gentile types with no external menace and no recorded history of violence or insanity. This would have worked immeasurably in Hutchinson’s favour if he really had murdered any of the victims, as would the lack of familiarity the police had in those days with serial offenders who pretend to be cooperative voluntary witnesses.

“Just as... of all the “unknown local nobodies”, it must have been him? Well excuse me there were about 100,000 males of the right age range living within walking distance of the crimes.”

But of all those 100,000 males, there is only a compelling circumstantial case for one of them having lied about his reasons for loitering fixatedly outside a murder scene shortly before that murder’s commission. That puts him in a much "firmer" position as a possible culprit than the others, not weaker.

“Which leads me to why he stopped.”

As Ruby has pointed out, it has been observed by criminologists that serials have ceased on account of the offender’s recent communication with the police and an attendant fear that he may be close to capture, the magnitude of which might not have fully dawned upon Hutchinson when he came forward. Not that a serial offender “stopping” really requires much of an explanation, given that they can and do stop for no other reason that personal choice. I’m compelled to point out that the killer may well have claimed other victims after Kelly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

There are people looking out of first floor windows!

Open windows on Dorset Street, Sally?!

But they'll let all the "ambient noise" out surely?

[Lechmere]

Ben
As I have said several times, Packer and Violenia were both given rigorous checks before being dismissed. I would presume Packer would have never been considered as a potential suspect as his wife was effectively an alibi. It is possible Violenia was suspected briefly.
Neither of these two put themselves right at the crime scene at the time of death. Neither were talked up by a senior policeman at the time as important witnesses - at least so far as we know (in Hutchinson’s case by Abberline. Neither featured prominently in the press. Neither were given an explanation as to their dismissal by a policeman involved in the case in their memoirs.
Hence I don’t think using Packer and Violenia as an example gets as far with regard to how the police may have treated Hutchinson, save for saying the police are likely to have looked at him with a more enquiring eye, due to his more prominent role.

“You first conclude that he was considered a suspect without a shred of evidence, and then use that to make the two-fold assumption that he must have been exonerated as one.”

You seem to have mistaken what I said so I will run through it again.
Hutchinson was clearly considered to be an important witness who had placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder and was subsequently dismissed. This is what we know for sure.
We do not know why he was dismissed.
Option 1 – the police may have found out something about his story that destroyed his credibility, but in such a way as it did not imply his involvement in the crime. I have given possible examples of this which I won’t repeat.
I would suggest that in this instance some rudimentary checks would have been preformed as to his story – some he will probably have ‘passed’, others ‘failed’ – hence his rejection.
Option 2 – Hutchinson’s story was discounted for some other reason that implied he was lying. This could be because he was a fantasist or because he was on the make or he was the culprit.
I would suggest that given that he had placed himself at the crime scene at the time it was committed, then even though the police force was in its infancy, the police would have wondered whether he was responsible and given him closer attention. If the newspapers worked this possibility out (as they did) then I am sure the flatfooted coppers would have also.
I would suggest that if the rudimentary checks were not completed to the police’s satisfaction then he would have been promoted as a proper suspect. This clearly did not happen.
My conclusion is that unless the police did not have grounds to suspect him then they would have checked him out.
There is no evidence for his beyond common sense... oh... and the example of how they treated Packer and Violenia. And Robert Paul. And the horse slaughterers on Winthrop Street.

“They are inferential probabilities based on the existing evidence”... in other words, to cut the verbage ... ‘must haves’.

Just as... of all the “unknown local nobodies”, it must have been him? Well excuse me there were about 100,000 males of the right age range living within walking distance of the crimes. Hutchinson has the great advantage that he came within the maw of the police and walked. Nearly all the others didn’t come under any scrutiny. That puts the 100,000 in a much firmer position as possible culprit.
Hutchinson isn’t unknown. He became very well known for his 15 minutes worth.

Which leads me to why he stopped. Was it because he was implicated and got the frights. Hold on a second, he deliberately inserted himself in the investigation, so that doesn’t add up. If he ‘lost his bottle’ he could have gone elsewhere – if he didn’t want to get a kick out of inserting himself of course.